Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

concealment points out comments from MPAA CEO Chris Dodd, who has acknowledged that SOPA and PIPA were soundly — and perhaps permanently — defeated. Quoting Ars Technica:
"Dodd sounded chastened, with a tone that was a far cry from the rhetoric the MPAA was putting out in January. 'When SOPA-PIPA blew up, it was a transformative event,' said Dodd. 'There were eight million e-mails [to elected representatives] in two days.' That caused senators to run away from the legislation. 'People were dropping their names as co-sponsors within minutes, not hours,' he said. 'These bills are dead, they're not coming back,' said Dodd. 'And they shouldn't.' He said the MPAA isn't focused on getting similar legislation passed in the future, at the moment. 'I think we're better served by sitting down [with the tech sector and SOPA opponents] and seeing what we agree on.' Still, Dodd did say that some of the reaction to SOPA and PIPA was 'over the top' — specifically, the allegations of censorship, implied by the black bar over Google search logo or the complete shutdown of Wikipedia. 'DNS filtering goes on every day on the Internet,' said Dodd. 'Obviously it needs to be done very carefully. But five million pages were taken off Google last year [for IP violations]. To Google's great credit, it recently changed its algorithm to a point where, when there are enough complaints about a site, it moves that site down on their page — which I applaud.'"

Its dead until the elections are over, then don't be surprised if it comes back.

Only if one party controls the legislative branch and the executive and it can get rubber stamped through.

Otherwise, there was enough negative publicity about the effort that I think either side would jump at the opportunity to claim that they are the true defenders of the internet by blocking bad legislation.

2 parties, 1 set of bosses. No matter which one of the 2 options you pick, both have the same set of people giving orders behind, at the very least in this particular topic. US constitution should be edited putting "We the lobbyist" at the start of it to describe reality.

I meant to vote out the incumbent lobbyists who effectively "own" the politicians who come and go much more often. These lobbyists have influence because they have money. They have money because of a revenue stream, and that stream comes from people opening wallets to them.

To vote with your wallet is to choose where you spend your money. If you have disposable income, buy your music from ethical places such as Magnatune instead, or donate to a worthwhile charity such as EFF or FSF.

Its dead until the elections are over, then don't be surprised if it comes back.

Oh so innocent; thinks he's so cynical. This is a thing that big media agrees with small (commercial) media agrees with commercial interests. The arms industry doesn't want you getting your information independently; the consumer industries want you to read their ads; the media doesn't want you to compete with them.

Its dead until the elections are over, then don't be surprised if it comes back.

It's dead.But this article sucks. It only obliquely touches on what Dodd has said is their new plan:Quietly engage private industry to crack down on copyright infringement.

Their new plan is more or less the same as the old plan, but it will be done in corporate board rooms instead of behind closed doors in Congress.Arguably, their new strategy is even worse for the public, since we will have almost no ability to influence the conversation at any point.

These bozos don't realize that they have lost control of information. Once you put information out it and people want it the information will go everywhere. Before they could release a movie and they controlled the flow of the physical film, then they released the video cassette and again they could mostly control this (some piracy) but now the only control they have is mostly at the film editing level. In the past they abused this control by releasing the films slowly around the world. People in Canada thought it sucked as we got the films after the US but people in Britain really thought it sucked as they got them long after us and much of the world had to wait for video. Places in Africa had theaters that showed video-taped films on big screens.

But now the film companies have put up so many barriers to my seeing their stuff that piracy is logical. I go to the theater for a 9:15 film arriving say 9:05. For those 10 minutes the theater blasts cell phone and car commercials at me. Then at 9:15 they start showing trailers and around 9:30 the film begins but not really it is advertizements for the various levels of production company and more advertisements for the actors and directors so maybe around 9:32 I am seeing a movie that I payed $13 for nearly 30 minutes earlier. Renting a movie is much the same except that I don't know where to rent movies anymore. But if you do get a blue ray most players won't let you skip past the various warnings and even sometimes the trailers.

Now compare that to pirating a movie. Download time 5-10 minutes, cost almost nothing, restrictions: none. So you set the download, get the download and fast forward to the exact moment the real movie starts.

But the one restriction is that it is slightly hard to do. Most people will have difficulty getting a movie onto their computer, finding the file, sending it to a large TV somehow, and then controlling the movie. And this is where the movie industry has a chance. They could make it really easy for most people to use any box (game consoles, apple TV, roku) like netflix and just get the movie for a reasonable price. If the theater charges me $13 don't think you can either charge me more (for my convenience) or anything even close; I know that if you are distributing it directly to me that you have a huge savings so at $2 per movie I will happily watch a zillion movies; at $9.99 a movie I'll find a better use for my money.

This brings me to another point. In this modern age people are finding better uses for their money so don't blame all your dropping revenues on piracy. A blockbuster video game can make billions, that money is coming out of people's entertainment budget which once went to movies and music.

But why would they want to sell you a movie for $2 that you can invite the whole neighbourhood over to watch as many times as you like when they currently charge $13 per person for a one-time viewing and then 6 months later charge you $20 for the DRM protected dvd/bluray full of advertisements?

Because of price elasticity. Price it lower more people (will potentially) buy. I think with how things are going with theatres and media sales it's a pretty safe bet.

E.g. Make crappy movies I'd never go to in the theatre or purchase on any medium $0.99 and I might decide it's decent popcorn fodder. Blockbuster that's just out? I'd be willing to pay more. But as long as I don't have advertisements etc shoved down my throat before getting to watch the film.

I think any worries about inviting the neighbourhood over or sending the file to someone else (if it's drm free) are just that, worries (with no basis in reality). Make it cheap enough and it's not worth someone's time or hassle to save a few bucks. I have a big TV, good sound system, comfortable seating, I can drink booze if I want to (cheaply at that), better popcorn (imho), I can order any type of food I want.. etc etc. The theatre has no draw to me. Why would I want to sit around with a bunch of strangers that talk and text during the movie?

The market has been ready for direct from studio downloads for almost a decade. The studios just have to get with it.

But why would they want to sell you a movie for $2 that you can invite the whole neighbourhood over to watch as many times as you like when they currently charge $13 per person for a one-time viewing and then 6 months later charge you $20 for the DRM protected dvd/bluray full of advertisements?

Downloads cost them servers and bandwidth.
If you take away the cinemas, you lose the profits from the over priced food.
If you lower the price of your product, you lower the perceived value
If your customers are accustomed to a particular price point, selling below that point will lose you more profit than you'll recover by increased sales.

Downloads cost them servers and bandwidth.
If you take away the cinemas, you lose the profits from the over priced food.
If you lower the price of your product, you lower the perceived value
If your customers are accustomed to a particular price point, selling below that point will lose you more profit than you'll recover by increased sales.

Mod poster Funny?

"Downloads cost them servers and bandwidth." - meanwhile everyone and their dogs are downloading their movies over bit-torrent at no additional cost to either them or the movie makers.

"If you lower the price of your product, you lower the perceived value" - for the last 10 years untold millions of people have been downloading their films for free. I think they're long past the point of having to worry about the 'perceived value' of their product!

"If your customers are accustomed to a particular price point, selling below that point will lose you more profit than you'll recover by increased sales." - addendum: If your customers are leaving you in droves and you refuse to change your pricing strategy, and instead try your very hardest to piss off the people who you should be trying to woo, then you deserve everything you get.

You said you don't know where to rent movies, I borrow dvd's from my library. Not that this helps you if you want to see a new movie asap. If you don't mind waiting a few weeks+, libraries are a great alternative, assuming yours has a decent selection. I've been able to catch up with all the films I deem worthwhile this way, at no cost to me.

Renting a movie is much the same except that I don't know where to rent movies anymore. But if you do get a blue ray most players won't let you skip past the various warnings and even sometimes the trailers.

The biggest problem with a worldwide release of a movie is the big question - what do you allow in?

In the US a pair of tits will get you an R rating instantly - which is fine, if that is the audience you are shooting for. If you want a PG-13 movie for the US audience, you have to cut the tits. Or, in a R movie in the US you can show female pubic hair - except if you want to release the movie in Japan that would instantly have it blocked. There are other rules for EU countries as well.

And then there are the other markets. Have a scene where someone is holding a Bible in a courtroom? Such a movie cannot be distributed in an Islamic country, or at least most of them. Want a movie where the hero is wearing a turban? Good luck

It gets absurd. They thought they could capture this in eight bits with DVD region coding, but that wasn't really sufficient. What it means today is pretty much anything outside the US gets stuck with everything being cut that could possibly be objectionable to anyone, anywhere. Maybe the US version is less chopped but think about a movie made for an adult EU audience - they are going to have to cut it for the US!

The fact that the entertainment industry at all levels has to deal with this is silly and it throws a lot of extra costs into it. I am pretty sure it is filtering into games today as well. Certainly music has had some run-ins with this sort of issue. The problem is there is no worldwide standard and there isn't going to be any time soon - certainly not until someone like SPECTRE takes over the planet and declares themselves to be Dictator for Life.

This (piracy beating movie theaters on convenience) is why services like Netflix are so important. Netflix is easier than piracy which tips the scales back into the studios favor. Except the studios see Netflix as a pseudo-pirate robbing them of DVD sales (instead of an ally turning would-be pirates into paying customers). Therefore, they restrict what content Netflix has access to and wind up cutting off their own nose to spite their face. Other services, like Amazon VOD, are good, but more expensive. (The Avengers is $3.99 for a 48 hour rental. For just the price of 2 Amazon VOD movie rentals, you can get a month of Netflix streaming.)

I try to start my show within five minutes of the advertised start time (depending on how many people are still in the lobby getting their popcorn and whatnot), and I play between zero and three trailers before the start of the actual movie.

You rock! In my city there are about 9 theaters with the largest having 17 screens. All are owned by the same Family who owns most if not all the theaters in my province. Their employees are pimply faced kids from the Simpsons and the places have had all the quality sucked out of them and painted over with a 90's black and glow veneer. They have left one theater in the city alone to be the classy theater where even the employees are cooler.

*deep, deep sigh* Look, MPAA, listen. You people were the ones who deluged our pop culture with movies written with shitty stories where the big evil shadowy overlord admits defeat, only to walk into some shadowy back room with other shady people and laugh about how "those fools" have let their guards down and now Plan B will kick in whenever the sequel gets made. You with me here? We've seen this movie a billion times. And you wrote it!

OF COURSE they're preparing something identical behind the scenes. They haven't STOPPED being greedy, stupid, shortsighted, corrupt assholes. Chris Dodd and everyone else who would rather screw over the public domain for a very small theoretical increase in profits, THEY are not the ones who are dead and never coming back. It's a damn shame too that they don't all slowly and simultaneously die of hemorrhoids.

I have a bad feeling that something worse is waiting for us down the line...

Exactly. That something worse will be the persistent steady erosion of rights and the criminalization of activities with extreme penalties. Bit by bit they will get what they want. Their mistake was grabbing at the powers they wanted too fast.

In the U.S. they've won on the constitutionality of statutory damages that bear no relation to actual harm. Essentially that is a private criminalization of a commercial tort.They're winning on extradition more than they are loosing.Megaupload is gone. Everyone else is scared.In Japan, downloading a song is now a criminal act that can get you two years in jail.And on, and on . . .

"So, now we know what to do to prevent or get rid of Dodd-Frank and other pieces of idiotic legislation."

What really gets me is that it was totally unnecessary. There was absolutely no need for that last-minute "explosion"... people had been telling their Congresscritters all along what they thought of SOPA and PIPA, they just didn't listen.

It took a BIG, and rather firm, kick in the ass to get them to pay attention. But that's not the way government is supposed to work. We aren't supposed to have to whip them to get them to actually work for us.

It took a BIG, and rather firm, kick in the ass to get them to pay attention. But that's not the way government is supposed to work. We aren't supposed to have to whip them to get them to actually work for us.

When there's a friggin 1,600 lb gorilla in the room with "Citizens United" tattooed on its chest, us little people have to whip that cream HARD and LONG before anything will happen.

These people are making money hands-over-fist. Billions of dollars flowing into their pockets.

Why do they feel they "need" to do anything about piracy? The vast majority of people will pay for their content. Even I, who used to pirate things like crazy when I was a teenager (due to complete lack of funds) now pay for my stuff since I can afford it.

They should instead find ways to make it easier for customers to buy their media. Look what they did for music; it's DRM free now and so convenient to buy from numerous places, and it all plays on pretty much every device out there. They should do the same thing for video content. Make it so when I pay $10 to download a movie, that it's truly MINE, and I'll gladly buy more movies online.

It's not hard. Yet they are stubborn jackasses and continue with this war of theirs. Reminds me of the equally pointless "war on drugs".

I said in terms of pointlessness . I believe the war on drugs is far worse, but at least some of the people behind it have (somewhat), in my opinion, noble intentions. I also believe they're completely wrong, but that's not the point. The only thing at stake with copyright infringement is potential profit. I find that to be an absolutely pathetic reason to push draconian laws.

Totally agree.I regularly pirate content - simply as I can't have it on all my devices otherwise.For example, I reread books I liked after a few years.Why on earth would I be happy with a cloud solution that probably is not going to be there in the next decade?Barring the total collapse of western civilisation, I can pretty much say I'll be able to read epub/html/txt.

Make it so when I pay $10 to download a movie, that it's truly MINE, and I'll gladly buy more movies online.

But that is what the RIAA and MPAA really want to prevent. "Piracy" is just a pretext that gets the politicians on their side. Their real goal is to revoke the idea of owning a copy of a book or movie, and "monetize" all digital "content;" that is, lock you in to paying them every time you want to review/view/listen to anything.

While the use of cannabis is mostly harmless, when used responsibly, ignoring what the state will do to you if you are caught in possession. Most others do have pretty negative effects in the long to medium term.

Just about every weekend here. There are reports of single vehicle collisions, generally fatal, in the early hours of saturday and sunday mornings. You can probably read that as someone out of their face on something decided to drive somewhere. They tend to be teens to

The war on drugs causes -1. Money to be funnelled to cartels2. Devloping countries to be in permanent states of civil war3. Users' lives to be wrecked for a crime that harms only them4. Users to die from impurites, unknown substances and unknown strengths5. Billions of dollars that could go toward actual harm reduction to be spent on militarising the police6. People with no relation to the drug war to get shot by those police7. A myriad of other nega

I think one problem is that people are too emotional about the issue. Some people don't seem to want to allow any casualties whatsoever and wish to live in some fantasy land where no one ever dies. It's very likely not possible, and that same attitude is what leads us to 'solutions' like the TSA: security theater at the expense of freedom.

There are probably

Key word: probably. That's not a sufficient reason to curtail individual freedom in the name of safety, in my opinion. I see it like this: if they use drugs, that's their

What exactly do you do with a schoolbus driver that is high? Once it is legal to use but not legal to do some things while high what happens to current job filtering where they disallow drug users completely?

Obviously, what happens is the people that have no sense continue to not use sense. While there are a lot of people that can sensibly use alchohol and drugs, check out the changes in class roster between the first day of freshman classes and the start of the 2nd semester at any large state university.

Calling them piracy, and intellectual property are the firsts problems.

Copying and evolving information is in our very nature, in fact, what makes us humans and not weird looking monkeys living in the wild is that we copied, and kept doing so. Civilization, religions, language, cultures, etc, all is copying, and we teach our children to do that since they born.

Digital media and internet just enhanced our ability to copy, is the natural thing for us to do. It can only be improved letting us to evolve t

The purpose of the "war on drugs/personal freedom" is to provide three-letter-agencies with an essentially fool-proof way to launder untold amounts of money for their other, off-the-books ventures, such as black ops and wetwork.

The vast majority will not pay for content. I don't know anyone who pays for music any longer - they just grab what they want for free.

Why are the media companies making money today? Because they are receiving payments in lucrative markets where promotion has value and they have a huge segment of the population either scared to download or incapable of it because of lack of connectivity. Unfortunately, both groups are pretty much confined to 40+ years of age and in many places it is more like 60+. These

To paraphrase a politician (who's name I don't know). "If it quakes like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is a duck."

Censorship is censorship, just because it is done by a corporation doesn't some how magically make it better. The fact that they manipulated Google into doing their censoring for them doesn't somehow make it clean just because the government wasn't the one doing it.

I don't buy that they aren't engaging in censorship just because they don't have the government doing it on their behalf. For the average person, they would be hard pressed to find an alternative that isn't censored.

Indiana poet James Whitcomb Riley (1849–1916) may have coined the phrase when he wrote "when I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck."[1][2] The phrase may also have originated much later with Emil Mazey, secretary-treasurer of the United Auto Workers, at a labor meeting in 1946 accusing a person of being a communist.[3]

The term was later popularized in the United States by Richard Cunningham Patterson Jr., United States ambas

Tip, if Slashdot is going to improve, the posters need to do a little more work.

"Indiana poet James Whitcomb Riley (1849â"1916) may have coined the phrase when he wrote "when I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck."[1][2]"

He is lucky he isn't in jail where he belongs for his role in the financial collapse. This piece of shit was receiving benefits (i.e. bribes) from the mortgage industry in exchange for helping to pass laws to keep a corrupt system going as long as possible at taxpayer expense.
It's fitting that he is the head of the MPAA. I am not sure that this organization can be properly administered without a giant douchebag at the helm.

like for instance, I have this content here "that I bought," which means "I bought a limited personal use license with a physical copy of the content in one format," and that the copyright acts almost uniformly around the world permit making copies, as many as I want, of the content in alternate formats, as long as I do not lose/sell/toss-to-torrents my original copy and only utilize one copy at a time?

That's always been my take on it. Depending on age, one could theoretically have purchased media (let's use music) on each of: vinyl, 8-track, analog tape, CD, digital tape (DAT), MP3 with DRM, then MP3 sans DRM. Probably extreme, but the point here is a sale of the same content, to the same person, could possibly take place seven or so times at retail price each time. I don't now and never have felt this is fair to the consumer.

Especially in the case of vinyl and metallic tape (including video tape), the physical media degrades with time and use; if (as the industry argument goes) I am purchasing the privilege to view/hear the content, then I should only have to purchase it once. If the material breaks down, or a better format emerges, I should be entitled to a copy in that format. I'll grant a small price to cover manufacturing costs if the item is physical, but if it's 100% digital even a small fee is indefensible if I've previously purchased said media rights, and THAT implies that I would be doing nothing wrong in obtaining a copy from alternate sources once I've paid my "right to consume" fee.

DNS filtering goes on every day on the Internet
I agree completely. For instance China is highly skilled in this. Iran is building a whole independent internet. Perhaps the MPAA would be happier making these their primary hubs of operation, places that are skilled in the art, so to speak. I don't think many in the western world would shed a tear if they chose to so do.

" 'DNS filtering goes on every day on the Internet,' said Dodd. 'Obviously it needs to be done very carefully. But five million pages were taken off Google last year [for IP violations]. "

Google takedowns are not the same as DNS filtering. This just shows basic lack of understanding of Internet architecture from those that are in the legislature and how they confuse (intentionally or non-intentionally) far reaching Internet architecture concepts with company control concepts to further their agenda.

Yeah, the RIAA/MPAA isn't going to try any more "Stop teh pirates!!!1!" bills anytime soon. They will probably try a few more disguised as cybersecurity legislation, tacking on copyright maximalism onto "think of the children!!!" alarmism. But that's all irrelevant.

The important lesson they learned is this: Accomplish your goals in an arena where there's no pesky democratic process to worry about. Instead, they push ACTA (which still isn't dead), and TPP (which looks to be significantly worse than ACTA). And they label them as "trade agreements" (even though they're obviously treaties), that way they don't have to deal with that pesky Senate that seems to respond better to millions of voters than millions of dollars. Yep, now they can do ALL their business in secret, back-room deals, and skip that entire public review phase.

And then, once the U.S. is signed onto these treaties, Congress gets the easy out: "We have to bring our laws into line with our international agreements!"

Still, Dodd did say that some of the reaction to SOPA and PIPA was 'over the top' — specifically, the allegations of censorship, implied by the black bar over Google search logo or the complete shutdown of Wikipedia.

"Okay, we lost but you guys are still wrong and you suck for how you did it" doesn't sound like someone who learned their lesson.

As a Senator this guy was key in screwing up things for us as citizens well beyond his new role with the MPAA. Dodd-Frank and his other forays into trying to bring order where order didn't need to be invested is going to haunt us for years to come. Shit, it would be better if Jack Valenti rose from the dead and ran the MPAA than this idiot. Sorry, this guy is a chode and he wants to screw you over in any way he can. From this. [wikipedia.org]

On January 17, 2012, Dodd released a statement criticizing "the so-called 'Blackout Day' protesting anti-piracy legislation."[26] Referring to the websites participating in the blackout, Dodd said, "It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use their services. It is also an abuse of power... when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests."[26] In further comments, Dodd threatened to cut off campaign contributions to politicians who did not support PIPA and SOPA, legislation supported by the MPAA.[27]

Disservice? PIPA and SOPA are disservices to consumers everywhere and he shou

On January 17, 2012, Dodd released a statement criticizing "the so-called 'Blackout Day' protesting anti-piracy legislation."[26] Referring to the websites participating in the blackout, Dodd said, "It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use their services.

Funny, I never thought these sites owed me their services. I don't recall signing any such contract with them. They do so on a voluntary basis and their willingness to do it is appreciated. I also appreciate their willingness to take a stand on this. I would respect it even if I disagreed with it. It's called honor. It's not something the likes of Dodd would understand because it cannot be deposited in a bank.

Those tactics don't work on people who have emotionally matured past the point of having a

He said the MPAA isn't focused on getting similar legislation passed in the future, at the moment. 'I think we're better served by sitting down [with the tech sector and SOPA opponents] and seeing what we agree on.'

How reasonable-sounding. It'd be more convincing if you had tried that approach BEFORE you tried to shove this thing through. Given that your initial approach was to big-foot the opposition and you got your asses handed to you, the other side would be justified in looking at your outstretched ha

He is saying the truth that they are dead. IMHO, it's a lie to say that groups like MPAA, such as RIAA and similar groups in other countries aren't trying to get similar laws passed as part of treaties and through the UN, etc.

Democracy fights in anger —it fights for the very reason that it was forced to go to war. It fights to punish the power that was rash enough and hostile enough to provoke it —to teach that power a lesson it will not forget, to prevent the thing from happening again. ~ George F. Kennan